EN BANC
EN BANC
EN BANC
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Decision 40<br />
G.R. Nos. 171396,<br />
171400<br />
171409, 171424, 171483<br />
171485, 171489<br />
again, that “overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed<br />
when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be<br />
applied to protected conduct.” 106<br />
Here, the incontrovertible fact remains<br />
that PP 1017 pertains to a spectrum of conduct, not free speech, which is<br />
manifestly subject to state regulation.<br />
Second, facial invalidation of laws is considered as “manifestly<br />
strong medicine,” to be used “sparingly and only as a last resort,” and is<br />
“generally disfavored;” 107 The reason for this is obvious. Embedded in the<br />
traditional rules governing constitutional adjudication is the principle that a<br />
person to whom a law may be applied will not be heard to challenge a law<br />
on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to<br />
others, i.e., in other situations not before the Court. 108 A writer and<br />
scholar in Constitutional Law explains further:<br />
The most distinctive feature of the overbreadth technique is<br />
that it marks an exception to some of the usual rules of constitutional<br />
litigation. Ordinarily, a particular litigant claims that a statute is<br />
unconstitutional as applied to him or her; if the litigant prevails, the<br />
courts carve away the unconstitutional aspects of the law by<br />
invalidating its improper applications on a case to case basis.<br />
Moreover, challengers to a law are not permitted to raise the rights of<br />
third parties and can only assert their own interests. In overbreadth<br />
analysis, those rules give way; challenges are permitted to raise the<br />
rights of third parties; and the court invalidates the entire statute “on its<br />
face,” not merely “as applied for” so that the overbroad law becomes<br />
unenforceable until a properly authorized court construes it more<br />
narrowly. The factor that motivates courts to depart from the normal<br />
adjudicatory rules is the concern with the “chilling;” deterrent effect of the<br />
overbroad statute on third parties not courageous enough to bring suit.<br />
The Court assumes that an overbroad law’s “very existence may cause<br />
others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected<br />
speech or expression.” An overbreadth ruling is designed to remove that<br />
deterrent effect on the speech of those third parties.<br />
In other words, a facial challenge using the overbreadth doctrine will<br />
require the Court to examine PP 1017 and pinpoint its flaws and defects, not<br />
on the basis of its actual operation to petitioners, but on the assumption or<br />
106<br />
See Concurring Opinion of Justice Mendoza in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, supra.<br />
107<br />
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973).<br />
108<br />
Ibid.